Fancy Footnotes and the Diabolical Inversion of Truth

#AmorisLaetitia

Be patient.  There are at least three of these  footnote monsters, and I’m pressed for time.

298. The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate. 329

Let’s have a look at footnote 329, wherein the Holy Father attempts a diabolical inversion of Truth by referencing two documents, both of which actually say the OPPOSITE or something WHOLLY DIFFERENT from what he is proposing.  Here’s the footnote:

329 John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51).

Now watch this.

First, here is the text from FC 84, written 35 years ago, by a saint.

84. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”[180]

By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.

With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord’s command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.

Yes, it acknowledges the sad reality of broken families, and notes that “discernment of situations” is necessary.  But then it goes on, within the same paragraph, to reinforce the impossibility of Eucharistic Communion for those who continue in second “marriages” unless, for the sake of the children produced by the second bond, and after repentance and sacramental Confession, they practice perfect continence (which, by the way, is already a very generous provision).  So Francis is using this paragraph to support his position that situations differ, even though elsewhere in the very same paragraph his broader proposal is utterly destroyed, by coming to the OPPOSITE conclusion of where he is going with this.

Now back to footnote 329, the second part, which references GS51.  Go back and look at the footnote.  Francis is moaning that, while of course the living as brother and sister option is always available, that idea is just so cruel and unmerciful, we must find a way around it for the sake of the children.  Then he quotes GS 51 to support the argument.

Except guess what. GS51 is talking about PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY MARRIED.  First marriages. Not divorced and remarried.  Furthermore, the topic at hand in GS is the licitness of refraining from full intimacy for the sake of spacing of children, which is WHOLLY DIFFERENT from the topic we are dealing with in AL. Here’s the relevant text:

51. This council realizes that certain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married lives harmoniously, and that they find themselves in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. As a result, the faithful exercise of love and the full intimacy of their lives is hard to maintain. But where the intimacy of married life is broken off, its faithfulness can sometimes be imperiled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered.

You can’t tell me this is bad scholarship.  This is deliberate and diabolical inversion.

And there is so much more.

 

7 thoughts on “Fancy Footnotes and the Diabolical Inversion of Truth

  1. I’m not sure how much more “formal” heresy needs to get before it is reacted to as such by the Church leaders, but you couldn’t make “The Joy of Love {of sin…} any more “formal” if you dressed the document up in a tuxedo.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s